|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 86 |
Nov 24 |
Reply |
I imported the image into LR; the pixel dimensions are 480 x 640 (176 kB) - when viewed at 100%, it's sharp. The lack of sharpness I incorrectly commented on is related to the small size of the file exported. The photograph itself is sharp. |
Nov 13th |
| 86 |
Nov 24 |
Comment |
Is this a pano or the wide-angle lens? To my eye - this very wide angle perspective creates a bit too much distortion. I appreciate that this is a style/aesthetic that many like.
The scene is expansive and has many interesting features.
Might try a tighter crop (perhaps a 16:9 landscape version) - since about half of this image is sky (which doesn't add that much interest).
|
Nov 13th |
| 86 |
Nov 24 |
Comment |
WOW - agree with Susan! Love the textures/color and wide range of brightness. I see a heart. The canyon walls lead me to the brightest spot . . . which is off-center. Really well done. I need to add Antelope Canyon to my bucket list! |
Nov 13th |
| 86 |
Nov 24 |
Comment |
My wife would NOT (!) like this image. Too rodent-like. I like your crop and the horizontal flip. The cracks in the concrete add interest and help guide my eye through the image (leading me to the food/face). Well done! |
Nov 13th |
| 86 |
Nov 24 |
Comment |
Nice composition - the path adds so much and the pink flowers are a nice bonus. I'm not sure since this is a low res copy - but it doesn't look sharp to me - what do you think the phone focused on? Not sure I'd crop it - I think the foreground grass is fine. I might play with the exposure (dodge/burn particularly the steps) - to make it a little less flat. |
Nov 13th |
| 86 |
Nov 24 |
Comment |
Hi Wayne - I like the composition and details (esp the whiskers!). As you state - it's not sharp and that limits my interest. I like sharp images (at least the main subject). I appreciate that others may prefer a softer/more artistic rendition One suggestion might be to play with a B&W version of this; since color doesn't contribute much to the image. |
Nov 13th |
| 86 |
Nov 24 |
Reply |
Thanks Jack - in this case - what I saw is exactly what the iPhone captures. The bright brown/golden colors were amazing. |
Nov 13th |
5 comments - 2 replies for Group 86
|
| 87 |
Nov 24 |
Reply |
|
Nov 13th |
 |
| 87 |
Nov 24 |
Reply |
Thank you. I went back to the images - found two from the day prior (when the sun was much brighter!) - shutter speeds were 1/8000 sec and 1/1250 sec. I prefer the slower shutter speeds with wing blur. |
Nov 13th |
 |
| 87 |
Nov 24 |
Comment |
I like this image - consider a tighter crop and perhaps monochrome. We know it a building (the sky adds little to the image). The detail and different glass/textures add interest. Please see a similar image I shared with Group 86 in September. Reflections in skyscrapers are a great subject! |
Nov 10th |
| 87 |
Nov 24 |
Comment |
Great capture - love the colors - and how the camera "sees" stuff we can't. The three people add so much interest. |
Nov 10th |
| 87 |
Nov 24 |
Comment |
I don't have much to add . . . a very peaceful/realistic scene. I like that you included more of the frame in direction of his gaze. The blurry reflection in the water adds interest! Well done. |
Nov 10th |
| 87 |
Nov 24 |
Comment |
I like the color palette - and your editing of the background works really well. I'm with Jennifer on the table - the blurring of items in the same plane of focus as the subject leaves me with a sense that it was edited. Perhaps that's ok - but even where the items meet the table - the sudden/harsh transition from tack sharp to blurry is not appealing to me. I am seeing a style in your photography/editing - which I'm told is a good thing! |
Nov 10th |
| 87 |
Nov 24 |
Comment |
Although several aspects of the image (including the height of the net) - seem "wrong" - this is not an image that grabs/hold my attention. I might be missing your intent? |
Nov 10th |
5 comments - 2 replies for Group 87
|
10 comments - 4 replies Total
|
